/new/ - New

>If you look at the technological progress that started with computers, everything is being automated at a speed unprecedented in history.
Automation is often used as an excuse to hire less people, but is it actually practical to apply it in most situations? Not really. Global competition is what's saturating jobs more than anything, and in a lot of cases it's a sad race to the bottom.

>Wait another 400 years and there will be no need for any human manual labor because you can let machines do everything for you and the ultimate ramification will be that money becomes useless since wages are only needed to incentivize competition among humans.
I don't know to what extent, but I would wager that within 400 years technology will have regressed substantially enough that the future is going to look like some bizarre alternate reality version of our present. Maybe there won't even be anyone manufacturing ICs.

A lot of jobs are bullshit to begin with, like most all government jobs that don't involve or are adjacent to physically removing violent criminals or pouring concrete. We basically have an entire apparatus dedicated to making sure people (like single female boomers) have access to adequate amounts of money while expecting very little in actual labor returns from them.

A lot of things can be automated but not everything. The idea of machines performing every conceivable task (including servicing other machines) all the way down to the like, microscopic level is just silly. If you've ever been to a mid-sized grocery store lately you could see how often the self-checkout machines run afoul of technical issues and there's no sign that won't be a problem in the future with any similar thing. It's commonly believed that the reliability and quality of both digital technology and analog machines has gone down over time rather than up, so I feel like this automation utopia is a pleasant thought but ultimately wishful thinking.

As people have gotten dumber we've become a lower trust society too, so delivery of sweatshop goods via unmanned drone or vehicle isn't really reliable. I don't know what the future holds, and work sucks (I know) but I don't know what alternative awaits us.

>>5786
>automation utopia is a pleasant thought but ultimately wishful thinking

You're missing the point. It's not about 100% automation. Sooner or later you'll reach the stage when technology is so advanced that you can eliminate a large amount of unnecessary jobs and menial labor. Even if you have 30% left, some people have to do the coding and have the knowledge of repairing machines, you will have too many humans around that can't be hired or employed because there is no viable need for it.
So then the question is: do we need more humans or do we need more quality in life?

>>5787
That much is true, the population is on an unsustainable trajectory, there was never meant to be ten billion of us, even 1 billion is a lot. Scrooge in a Christmas Carol lamented the teeming masses of the "surplus population" in the mid 1800s and there was less than a billion people worldwide then, less than 250 million across NA and Europe combined. To think that there'd be 8 times that many 150~ years later is crazy. It's noteworthy that most billionaire's vision of an ideal future don't include favelas with billions of violent, seething 80 IQ poorfags in them

>>5788
>It's noteworthy that most billionaire's vision of an ideal future don't include favelas with billions of violent, seething 80 IQ poorfags in them
Not publicly at least.

>>5765
You just described everything wrong with neoliberal/Keynesian economics.

>If you look at the technological progress that started with computers, everything is being automated at a speed unprecedented in history. Wait another 400 years and there will be no need for any human manual labor because you can let machines do everything for you and the ultimate ramification will be that money becomes useless since wages are only needed to incentivize competition among humans.

This will never happen unless Keynesianism as a system of economics is abolished/changes to incorporate other schools.

In reality Money rules in these countries, they talk about press freedom when in fact all these newspapers have one owner and the owner is, in any case, the sponsor this press then shapes puplic opinion these political parties don't have any differences at all like before with us you already know the old political parties they were all the same.

Then people must think that in these countries of freedom and wealth... there should exist a very comfortable life for its people but the opposite is the case.

In these countries, in the so-called "DEMOCRACIES" the people are by no means the main focus of attention.

What really matters

Is the existence of this group of "DEMOCRACY MAKERS" that is, the existence of a few hundred of giant capitalists who own all the factories and shares and who, ultimately lead the people.

They are not interested at all in the great mass of people.

They are the only ones who can be addressed as international elements, because they conduct their business everywhere.

It is a small, rootless, international clique that is turning people against each other, that does not want them to have peace.

They can suppress us! They can kill us, if you like! But we will not capitulate!

These people (the Rothschilds and their international hyenas) used to laugh about it they thought it was a joke they are not laughing anymore today they realise the gravity of the situation.

~ Adolf Hitler

Would hypocritical billionaires be lowed in a h'white nationalist soyciety?

https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1794348751789977795

>>5787
Resource scarcity will probably prevent full automation. Even with electric cars the alarm bells are being rung that there just won't be enough copper and other materials there to pad out the grid for them. In fact I think that explains the recent surge in copper prices. All those gay green initiatives are starting to hit the wall of reality.

People forget that there's eight billion people on this planet and most of them only consume as much energy as the average western refrigerator. Why build elaborate robots when some Cambodian can come in on a temporary work visa and do the work? Makes no sense really. Even in Korea where they're trying their best to automate everything, the countryside is fill of hordes of Pajeets and SEAs doing the work nobody else wants to do.

Plus there's just not the cognitive capital there to maintain robots. It's one thing when you're automating a simple movement like we've done so far in factories, but the low hanging fruit has already been picked and future robotics will need to be a lot more elaborate. A welding robot that climbs up and down buildings would have intricate machinery and require a 110+ technician to diagnose and repair, meanwhile some 90IQ fuckwit on meth can just climb up there and do the job based on muscle memory. You can get around that problem the same way they've gotten around increasing car complexity, by just having the components get swapped out like pieces of lego, but that's wasteful and still contributes to the resource scarcity problem.

Normalize bicycles made of bamboo and cactus skin with like 100mm chainrings on them that can go 60mph

>>6100
I've been trying to explain this to anti-depopulation advocates for years now. Virtually infinite and easily replaceable slaves are in fact a lot more efficient than complex, difficult-to-maintain systems. Never mind the fact that most of this soyence-coomer trash isn't even viable in the first place.

>>6100
>Resource scarcity
>won't be enough copper and other materials

https://evolutiondc.museum.gwu.edu/the-washington-monument-capstone/
>It is unsurprising that the Washington Monument, similar to architecture all around the capital, was built with marble. What may surprise you is that the capstone resting on the top of the monument is made of a $225 pyramid of aluminum.
>Costing $1.10 per ounce, aluminum was considered as valuable as silver.
>Less than two years after the placement of the capstone, the value of aluminum dropped dramatically when a young chemist discovered a simpler method of processing the metal.

Same thing has happened with diamonds. You can now create laboratory-grown diamonds. Resources aren't infinite but you can easily reuse existing metals and make it less expensive.

>>6186
H'whats going on in that set of photos?

>>6186
The problem isn't that there aren't enough resources necessarily. Usually the problem with soyence coomer schemes boils down to issues with energy, time, or economy. So for example: You could launch a few satellites far out into orbit and you could provide internet to a lot of people at a minimal cost, accepting the reality of latency, or you can be a retard like Musk and try to launch thousands of satellites into LEO, spending so much on launch costs, production, and maintenance that even if everyone on earth was a starlink subscriber it would still never be profitable. This is the kind of thing tech faggots do. If their ideas aren't out-right impossible, then the things they propose are completely impractical. Many of these ideas were rejected by better men decades ago. Things haven't changed just because "it's the future". The reality is we haven't had any major technological breakthroughs since the transistor. Everything since then has just been logical iterations. They don't even have proofs of concept to show otherwise. In the case of "automation" or "AI", it's not some kind of self-sustaining system. The latter lives on profuse injections of investment capital. It wastes significantly more than it produces and it cannot exist without nigger-cattle to feed it. It may look fancy, but there is in fact just a man behind the curtain. Believing AGI is going to emerge and that robots are going to maintain themselves, that the economics are going to be irrelevant, and that were all going to be lorded over by Mr.House and his securitrons is like believing in a perpetual motion machine, literally.